Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Q: 2.5" cat-back vs. 3" cat-back... is the 3" any better? or do i get the 2.5" ??

when the tax return comes in, i will be in the market for a new cat-back exhaust...

currently i have a 3" dump/front on the standard r32 turbo, and have the stock cat-back into a 2.5" straight through muffler... won't ever be running more than 13 or 14psi through my FMIC (and with gtr cams this week!)

so brings me back to the question: do i go 2.5" cat-back or 3" cat-back?

for the exhaust flow i require will a 2.5" cat-back be sufficient? i have read articles of sr20's and other 2L engines making good power with a 2.5" exhaust so would 3" just bo overkill with unnecessary cabin resonance?

or will the extra diameter of the 3" over 2.5" make a big difference?

if i choose the 2.5" i can just change the pipe and leave my current muffler and that will save on money a bit...

what do you think?

remember its hanging off an rb20 not an rb25 so exhaust flow will be less.

cheers,

Waz.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/44306-25-vs-3/
Share on other sites

Depends what sort of power u are making with the 2.5".

Bonest stock my R32 made 115rwkw, stock everything.

I then had a fmic, bosh910 external pump, 3" turbo back exhaust with resonator and muffler fitted up, not all at once but near enough.

With the fuel sorted out ~12:1 AFR on 12.5psi (stock IC) it was making 152rwkw.

With the stock fueling (rich due to external pump) and 15psi (FMIC) the car made 155rwkw.

With the fuel sorted out ~12:1 AFR on 15psi (FMIC) it was making 164rwkw on a 30degree day.

I know dyno's are only tuning tool but it gives you a rough idea.

With the car running 12.5psi of boost and making 152rwkw it would accelerate as quick as a bone stock R33 GTR, we went on a few cruises also managed to grab a vid of one of the runs.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/44306-25-vs-3/#findComment-905603
Share on other sites

my RB20 runs a 3" dump/front pipe, cat and 3" Trust Power Extreme II exhaust

nice sound outside, quiet inside the cabin, actually improved the torque in the midrange significantly back when my car was stock and helped the responsiveness overall. a simple ECU remap improved that further. Now significantly modified, but exhaust is still good - if I had a 2.5" I would've needed to spend more $$ to get it changed.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/44306-25-vs-3/#findComment-906455
Share on other sites

It all depends what your final goals are.

I wish I didn't waste the $1650 this exhaust cost me around 2 years ago.

I went for a custom system as I didn't like the big arsed milo-tin look.

Its a nice sounding exhaust, not muffled so you can hear the nice purr when cruising along, doesn't get the cabin boom.

A WOT it is louder than most jap exhausts but it isn't loud enough to be annoying.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/44306-25-vs-3/#findComment-906523
Share on other sites

hmmm so the 3" sounds like a clear winner here...

what about going a custom exhaust (3" mandrel with cannon muffler and resonator - $450) versus a jap second hand exhaust (same specs) for about 500 probably

will there be any differences in cabin resonance? will i get a quieter sound from a trusty jap exhaust?

the exhaust shop that quoted me 450 also said that they make the exhaust sit higher than stock so it is not the lowest part of the car and makes it easier to lower the car later if i want :(

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/44306-25-vs-3/#findComment-906607
Share on other sites

Be carefull what mufflers that custom exhaust place is using, for a good quality cat back exhaust the cheapest I have been quoted is around $600, mild steel.

For a full turbo back exhaust inc. cat I was quoted around $1100 for mild steel.

Stainless jumps the price up to around $1500-1600.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/44306-25-vs-3/#findComment-907026
Share on other sites

For any give setup, 3" will flow better than 2.5" - alot better.

Is is worth it? well thats pretty objective, but IMHO, 3" wont hurt anything - 2.5 is smaller and therefore more likely to be restrictive. I have heard quiet 3" systems, and noisey 3" systems. The big problem is finding the balance. If you want quiet, it will always be at the sacrifice of power.

Your choice, do you want power or comfort? How much noise can you handle? I went through several cat back systems until I found one that was the right balance of power and noise.

Finally settled on a HKS super dragger, which is a nice balance for me.

Without knowing what an exhaust flows like - how restrictive it is, how can you know what to do. Remeber that back pressure will kill response, spoolup and peak power as well as mid range and bottom end. Simple rule with turbo cars, the better it flows, the better it is:)

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/44306-25-vs-3/#findComment-907287
Share on other sites

For any give setup, 3" will flow better than 2.5" - alot better.

Is is worth it?  well thats pretty objective, but IMHO, 3" wont hurt anything - 2.5 is smaller and therefore more likely to be restrictive.  I have heard quiet 3" systems, and noisey 3" systems.  The big problem is finding the balance.   If you want quiet, it will always be at the sacrifice of power.

Your choice, do you want power or comfort?  How much noise can you handle?  I went through several cat back systems until I found one that was the right balance of power and noise.

Finally settled on a HKS super dragger, which is a nice balance for me.

Without knowing what an exhaust flows like - how restrictive it is, how can you know what to do.  Remeber that back pressure will kill response, spoolup and peak power as well as mid range and bottom end.  Simple rule with turbo cars, the better it flows, the better it is:)

thanks mate, as always a thorough response.

my gtr cams went in today so the exhaust really has to go soon so i can get those exhaust gasses out quickly!

2 questions:

- how low does the super dragger hang?

- cannon mufflers: are they any better/worse for flow/noise than a larger muffler? (assuming they are both 3" straight through)

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/44306-25-vs-3/#findComment-907459
Share on other sites

The super dragger seems to hang about as low as other cat back systems I had fitted, but the rear muffler is pretty fat and sits a bit lower than the others.

As for muffler type, I really think it comes back to design again. The design of the through pipe, what sort of material is being used and size/length would all have an impact. Bit of a black art to me - thats why I just went with swap a few until I found a good one. I even tried an N1 style that was louder than a straight 90mm pipe!

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/44306-25-vs-3/#findComment-909295
Share on other sites

I recently upgraded my 2.5" system which was starting to rattle and sound dodgy. Picked up a second hand 3" HKS Super Drager system which was in pretty decent nick (bar a few scratches and scrapes from speedbumps) for $350 and got it fitted. I mainly expected an improvement in sound, but the car feels so much nicer to drive now, with better midrange.

I think it cost me about $450 all up after fitting. Bargain!

Red17

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/44306-25-vs-3/#findComment-909387
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...